Open Stack

Thanks Brian.

That's a very much needed implementation.


On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Brian Haley <brian.haley at hpe.com> wrote:

> On 4/26/16 12:05 PM, Jaison Peter wrote:
>
>> Hi George,
>>
>> Thanks for letting me know that we can create distributed router by
>> disabling SNAT in central router.
>>
>> Even though we use VRRP HA router, it will consume 100 public IPs in the
>> scenario I mentioned above, but can save IPs used in compute fip
>> namespace.
>>
>> Yes, compute node do not need public IPs, but the fip name space in them
>> uses it.
>>
>
> Hi Jaison,
>
> I've been working on a spec to address the public IP usage in the FIP
> namespace, it's at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300207/ (it needs an
> update).  Basically, it would change the allocation strategy to use
> addresses from an "infrastructure" subnet for ports that don't need to be
> publicly reachable.  It should also support the case where the default SNAT
> IP doesn't need public reach-ability either, you only need it for floating
> IPs.
>
> Plan is to finish this in the Newton cycle.
>
> -Brian
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:57 PM, David Medberry <openstack at medberry.net
>> <mailto:openstack at medberry.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Jaison,
>>
>>     This is an issue that the Neutron team is aware. They will likely be
>>     addressing this (at some point) but your understanding aligns with
>>     my own. So, public IPV4 usage is a well known, well documented issue
>>     and DVR / HA exacerbates it.
>>
>>     On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Jaison Peter <urotrip2 at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:urotrip2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi all,
>>
>>         I  was working in an openstack project to build a small to
>>         medium level public cloud on the top of openstack. We are
>>         researching lot more about scalable large openstack deployments
>>         and planning our design accordingly. Initially we will be having
>>         50+ compute nodes and planning to grow up to 200 compute nodes
>>         in an year by migrating the existing clients to new platform.
>>
>>         I have many concerns about the scaling and right choices , since
>>         openstack is offering lot of choices and flexibility, especially
>>         in networking side.Our major challenge was choosing between
>>         simplicity and performance offered by Linux bridge and features
>>         and DVR offered by OVS.  We decided to go with OVS, though some
>>         were suggesting like OVS is slow in large deployments. But the
>>         distributed L3 agents and bandwidth offered by DVR inclined us
>>         towards OVS. Is it a better decision?
>>
>>         But one of the major drawback we are seeing with DVR is the
>>         public IP consumption.If we have 100 clients and 1 VM per client
>>         , eventually there will be 100 tenants and 100 routers. Since
>>         its a public cloud, we have to offer public IP for each VM. In
>>         DVR mode, fip name space in compute will be consuming one public
>>         IP and if 100 VMs are running among 20 computes, then total 20
>>         public IPs will be used among computes. And a router SNAT name
>>         space will be created for each tenant router(Total 100)  and
>>         each of it will be consuming 1 public  IP and so total 100
>>         public IPs will be consumed by central SNAT name spaces. So
>>         total 100 + 20 = 120 public IPs will be used by openstack
>>         components and  100 will be used as floating IPs (1:1 NAT) by
>>         VMs. So we need 220 public IPs for providing dedicated public
>>         IPs for 100 VMs !! Anything wrong with our calculation?
>>
>>         From our point of  view 120 IPs used by openstack components in
>>         our case (providing 1:1 NAT for every VM) is wastage of IPs and
>>         no any role in network traffic. Centrallized SNAT is useful , if
>>         the client is opting for VPC like in AWS and he is not attaching
>>         floating IPs to all instances in his VPC.
>>
>>         So is there any option while creating DVR router to avoid
>>         creating central SNAT name space in controller node ? So that we
>>         can save 100 public IPs in the above scenario.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Mailing list:
>>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>>         Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
>>         <mailto:openstack at lists.openstack.org>
>>         Unsubscribe :
>>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list:
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
>> Unsubscribe :
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20160427/433c6172/attachment.html>